Davis v. Lansing’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 72 · 1988
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Russillo v. Scarborough (1991), Washington v. James (1993)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Younger v. Harris · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Rose v. Lundy
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“traditional meaning and purpose of habeas corpus [is] to effect release from illegal custody”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.